Chuck Colson recently completed a 3 part series on what he called “demographic winter,” a supposedly devastating (and imminent) financial and economic crisis caused by declining population. In the article on “Demographics and Prosperity,” he writes:

[B]uying stocks is essentially betting on the future of the economy, and the best guide to that future is the actions of policymakers and financial markets. Correct?

Well, not necessarily. There is another—arguably more reliable—predictor of economic health: demographics…

In other words, future prosperity is determined, to a significant degree, by the number of children being born today.

In hindsight, this ought to be obvious: Consumer spending drives the economy. The more people you have in their peak spending years, the more spending you have on everything from housing, to travel, and taxes paid. As a population ages, it spends less.

The ultimate cause of this problem? An amazingly simple one.

But, as Spengler and others have pointed out, the root of the problem is “the decline of religious faith.” Loss of faith in the world to come leaves us grasping for everything we can get in this one, even at the expense of future generations.

Today’s installment of TIA Tuesday is almost dramatic: Vox Day comes around a street corner in Dodge City and finds Richard Dawkins struggling with a friend of Vox’s, by the name of “ID.”

“Dawkins, you villain,” shouts Vox, “you’ve messed with me and my friends for the last time!” And with that, he pulls out his trusty six-shooter—and shoots poor old ID in the back. “Take that, Dawkins, you loser!” crows Vox, capering around the body of his fallen comrade, with a bemused Dawkins standing there wondering whose side Vox is really on.

Via Pharyngula, the following quote from Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal:

One, I don’t think this is something the federal or state government should be imposing its views on local school districts. You know, as a conservative I think government that’s closest to the people governs best. I think local school boards should be in a position of deciding the curricula and also deciding what students should be learning. Secondly, I don’t think students learn by us withholding information from them. Some want only to teach intelligent design, some only want to teach evolution. I think both views are wrong, as a parent.

Um, right. Schools shouldn’t be restricted to giving kids only the truth. Local school boards ought to be free to inject popular regional opinions into the curriculum, as if they were just as valid as the facts. In fact, schools should make sure that by the time a high school senior graduates, he or she is no longer able to even tell the difference between scientific fact and popular opinion.

Folks, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Teaching kids the truth, and ONLY the truth, is a GOOD thing. And that is why it is imperative that we MUST “teach the controversy” regarding evolution and ID.

Q: I want to make myself clear: I have no interest in God or religion, and I don’t care who knows it. As far as I’m concerned, God doesn’t exist, and this life is all there is. Don’t even bother to write me back, because I’m not interested. – G.P.

Billy’s answer? He confronts the issue head on by denying that it’s really true that the atheist has no interest or belief in God.Read the rest of this entry »

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) – The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops issued a document Friday warning against what they consider the moral dangers of embryonic stem cell research, saying it treats human beings as commodities and reduces procreation to a manufacturing process.

With elections looming this fall, the bishops said they are not asking Catholics or the public to choose between science and religion. Instead, they are urging people to examine how society should conduct medical research.

When the bishops say they are “not asking Catholics or the public to choose between religion and science,” what does that really mean?

Geisler and Turek continue to pursue the question of whether or not miracles are possible, based on the assumption that God exists. That seems like a backwards approach to me: real apologetics ought to show the miracles first, and then, if they prove to be genuine, proceed from there to the conclusion that God exists. But that’s not G&T’s approach, for whatever reason. Speaking of the comparison between a closed-box universe (i.e. materialism is all there is) versus an open box universe (i.e. God is supernatural and can reach into the box at any time), they write:

We know beyond a reasonable doubt that a theistic God exists. Since God exists, the universe represented by the closed box is false. The box is open and was created by God. So it is possible for God to intervene in the natural world by performing miracles. In fact, miracles are not only possible, miracles are actual, because the greatest miracle of all—the creation of the universe out of nothing—has already occurred. So with regard to the Bible, if Genesis 1:1 is true—”In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”—then every other miracle in the Bible is easy to believe. [Emphasis theirs.]

Personally, when I was in Sunday School, I was always taught that the Incarnation was the greatest miracle of all. And so was the Resurrection.

Here’s Vox Day, in the comments on his own post, wondering about one of life’s little mysteries:

Let me get this straight. I tell you what I’m going to do, then I do it, and I repeatedly demonstrate that I am willing to back up my arguments. You think this looks pathetic and ridiculous. PZ, on the other hand, does absolutely nothing but make insulting statements that he does not back up or support in any way, and yet you find that impressive.

I had planned to deal with this guy’s chapter-by-chapter approach once Kelly got through with hers. But, since he’s repeatedly demonstrated a near complete inability to make a coherent rebuttal to anything I’ve written, it’s somewhat of a relief to know that I don’t have to bother…

[S]ince the clueless wonder declares that I’m incapable of reasonable discourse, there’s obviously no reason to bother with him anymore.

So we’re supposed to believe that Vox Day, self-described “award-winning cruelty artist,” a man who routinely describes the atheist as “an individual who asserts there is no God because he is a socially autistic asshole,” a man who has been trying to spread the idea that Obama is a “vote rapist” just because he was a black man competing against a white woman—we’re supposed to believe that this Vox Day is really a delicate, sensitive soul who’s going to run crying home to mama just because I used the word “fart” in the same sentence as his pseudonym? I don’t think so.

Since we seem to be talking about Vox Day this week, and since he has been so kind as to make some rather revealing posts recently, I thought I’d offer a comment or two on the Great Debate Challenge that Vox has been crowing about recently. As you may have heard, Vox challenged atheist blogger PZ Myers to an on-air debate on the subject of the evidence for God, in conjunction with the “Northern Alliance Radio Show.” PZ replied “Thanks but no thanks” (well, actually, he said “I don’t debate crazy pipsqueaks any more”), and Vox predictably pounced on this as proof that PZ was “afraid” to debate.

Now, personally I don’t believe fear had anything to do with PZ’s response. Vox Day is to reasonable discourse what a fart is to a flower shop, and it’s no shame for PZ to turn down the “opportunity” to lend him any more time in the spotlight than he deserves. But if you look more closely at the two exchanges, you might be surprised to find out who it is that is actually running away. Then again, you might not be surprised at all.